Partly allowed

Tvl.Devi Trading Corporation v. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Madras HC5 Mar 2024WP/21937/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenged a reassessment order as barred by limitation. The High Court set aside the impugned order to allow the respondent to furnish proof of service of a prior notice and the petitioner to raise objections including limitation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Respondent directed to furnish notice copy and proof of service within 4 weeks; petitioner at liberty to submit objections within 6 weeks.

Tvl.Devi Trading Corporation Vs The Assistant… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.21937 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 05.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.21937 of 2021 and W.M.P. No.23140 of 2021

¶7

Tvl.Devi Trading Corporation Represented by its Partner Mr.Rajesh Kumar Dokania, No.9/1, Iyya Solomon Road, Gyanapushpam Nagarsaddiyankuppam Village, Manali, Chennai-600 103.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kilpauk Assessment Circle, No.F50, 1^st Avenue, Annanagar (East), Chennai-600 102. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Respondent in TIN:33301121974/2011-12 dated 24.08.2021 and to quash the same as being illegal and unconstitutional as being time barred for having been passed after the expiry of the time limit prescribed for such assessment under the TNVAT Act.

¶12

1/5

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P. No.21937 of 2021

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate ORDER

¶16

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of reassessment made under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2011-12 dated 24.08.2021 on the premise that the same is barred by limitation.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no assessment was made for the relevant assessment year i.e., 2011-12 and in view of the deeming contained in Section 22(2) of the Act, the petitioner must be deemed to have been assessed on the 31^st October of the succeeding year i.e., 31.10.2012. Power of reassessment under Section 27 of the Act ought to be exercised within 6 years from the date of assessment i.e., 31.10.2012 which in the present case would expire on 31.10.2018. The order of assessment refers to a notice dated 31.12.2020 which is beyond the period of limitation stipulated under Section 27 of the Act, thus the

¶18

2/5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P. No.21937 of 2021

¶21

impugned order of assessment is barred by limitation and a nullity.

¶22

To the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent that even prior to the notice dated 31.12.2020. A notice dated 20.12.2016 was apparently issued and in support thereof postal receipts were also submitted during the course of hearing.

¶23

The above submission of the Respondent is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who submitted that the alleged notice dated 20.12.2016 was brought to the notice of the petitioner for the first time only during the course of hearing, thereby denying the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

¶24

In the circumstances, I am of the view that it is appropriate that the impugned order be set-aside and the Respondent is directed to furnish copy of the notice dated 20.12.2016 and proof of service to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the copy of the notice dated 20.12.2016 and proof of service of such notice,

¶25

3/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P. No.21937 of 2021

¶28

being furnished by the Respondent the petitioner is at liberty to submit documents, raise objections including that of limitation within a period of 6 weeks thereafter. The Respondent shall proceed to pass orders after providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

05.03.2024

¶30

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mka

¶31

4/5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P. No.21937 of 2021

¶34

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶35

mka

¶36

To: The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kilpauk Assessment Circle, No.F50, 1^st Avenue, Annanagar (East), Chennai-600 102.

¶37

W.P. No.21937 of 2021 and W.M.P. No.23140 of 2021

¶38

05.03.2024

¶39

5/5

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tvl.Devi Trading Corporation v. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Devi Trading Corporation v. The Assistant Commissioner(St)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

West Asia Maritime Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Prv Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs The State tax officer

M/s.Msr Polymer and Paper Cups Vs The Additional Deputy Commercial

Tvl.Jrp Exports Vs Assistant Commissioner (Arc)

M/s.Pallazzio Energy Farms LLP Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s.G.M.Shiptech Training Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner